Comments

  • On Illusionism, what is an illusion exactly?
    ↪goremand

    , an illusion happens at the level of perception, while a misinterpretation happens (obviously) at the level of interpretation — goremand

    Many psychologists and philosophers today would argue that perception is interpretation all the way down.
    Joshs

    ↪Joshs

    While it may be that it's not human nature to perceive without also interpreting, I think the two are distinct. I would say a camera is an example of perception without interpretation in the sense I mean.
    goremand

    The camera is recording, not perceiving. When humans perceive something they are not just detecting it with their eyes, there is a whole perceptual apparatus attached to the act of seeing that just isnt present in a camera, yet.DingoJones

    The above quoted posts are an interesting exchange.
    Perception implies the mind and beliefs (true belief or false belief). So, a distinction between perception and interpretation does not make sense. (To understand this further, I mentioned in another thread at one time that when we talk (philosophically, scientifically) of awareness/consciousness, we are talking about the central nervous system. But there is a sort of a zombie nervous system that does not require our mind in order for it to function, and that is the enteric nervous system. (Look this up please).

    That said, Goremand's analysis of illusion is a good one. Where does the error -- or the illusion -- occur? In the epistemological analysis of beliefs, it is a matter of various facts associated with an assertion. Should we prefer being justified or possessing the truth?
    I believe that every individual walking around has a brain inside their skull. But I could not attain the truth of this belief because I wouldn't be able to open every person's skull to check if there's a brain inside.
  • Does ethics apply to thoughts?
    To me @Judaka's and @unenlightened's posts complete my response to the "Does ethics apply to thoughts " question.
  • The Argument from Reason
    I'm not seeing why acquiring the capacity for reason should not be thought of as a result of evolutionary biology, driven by adaptation. — Janus

    Because there's nothing in the theory that addresses it specifically. The theory is about the factors that contribute to the survival and evolution of species.
    Wayfarer
    No, the study of civilization, which includes evolution, is also the study about the intelligence of humans over epochs. What Janus might be referring to is the study of logic, which is a modern development. The "capacity for reason", as civilization reveals, is actually the capacity to use tools, for example.
  • Science as Metaphysics
    I have forgotten that this is Pantagruel's thread. I thought it was Gnomon's. Sorry.
  • Science as Metaphysics
    In very summary terms, scientific methodology has yielded many amazing and indispensable discoveries and innovations, but it doesn't necessarily comprehend or address the problems of philosophy, and the attempt to squeeze those problems into the procrustean bed of the objective sciences has deleterious consequences.Wayfarer
    Yes, scientism becoming the predominant view.
  • Science as Metaphysics
    Is there an example of such a thing you can identify?Tom Storm
    Telling a lie while believing otherwise -- your pulse betrays you. The brain sometimes has its own motivation. Hence, there are times you make mistakes in the process of executing a particular action: you forgot to turn off the light when you exited your house, you forgot to lock your door, you missed your exit on the road.

    Edit: intuition is a very private conscious deliberation -- private is the key word. When you know the subject well, your intuition will also be strong, so strong that you act on it confidently.
  • Science as Metaphysics
    THE TITLE OF THIS POST IS HOW TO PUT TOGETHER A SYSTEM OF METAPHYSICS IN WHICH THE ONTOLOGY IS THE ISSUE.

    But, for the moment, I want to address this even though it has nothing to do with the topic:
    which is interchangeable with matter through said equation - was THE fundamental existent.Wayfarer
    Are you serious? The equation calls for the measure/quantity contained "in this matter" to come up with "that capacity" in joules. You're confusing identity with the equivalence.

    @Pantagruel's post above is an excellent introduction to what a metaphysical system should be.


    In my own thesis I define Energy as a form of Information (power to cause change in form or state), which is also a causal interrelationship (e.g. organization)*4, not a thing in itself.Gnomon
    Rule 1. Thingness is a metaphysical must have, if you're going to have an ontology. Without the thingness, it's either an accidental feature or a conditional feature which must depend on other essences for it to exist. Determinate things are what we call things in metaphysics.

    Energy is not a cause". Philosopher David Hume discussed the mysteries of Causation at a time before scientists had pieced together our modern notion of Energy. He referred to the producer of causation as an "illusion"*1, but Einstein might say it is a "stubborn illusion", that there is some kind of physical "connection" between Cause & Effect*2.Gnomon
    Rule 2. Causation is at the heart of a metaphysical system -- and it is what we know as scientific causation that involves the physical/material entities. Without a thing that can cause something or in relation with causes, it has no essential existence.

    Energy is not a substance, not something in the sense of “some thing”. Energy often appears to be a substance that flows, for example if charging a battery or an electrical capacitor.Gnomon
    Rule 3: The Doctrine of Haecceity. That tree is a tree. Treeness is what makes a tree a tree. Use haecceity to assign an identity to a thing. There is mindness in "mind" as explained by Descartes or Kant. If you cannot have a uniqueness of a substance, then you don't have a system. All you have is a parasite feature that cannot exist without the other features. It is a conditional existence. Haecceity also calls for the "wholeness" -- the mind is a whole thing. If you posit that the mind exists, then it is the measure of all things.

    Data is defined as individual facts, while information is the organization and interpretation of those facts.Gnomon
    Rule 4: Prehension is what you are talking about and facts are what we spit out when we have enough prehension of a thing or phenomenon. We use language to put together a statement of facts. Information is our own expression of the thing that caused us to have this epistemic values. Your metaphysical system is working well if you could come up with data or information in the process of your existence. So, if the mind is the thing, then the mind perceives, makes logical connections, makes hypotheses, puts together a coherent explanation of the world.
  • Science as Metaphysics
    I suppose you are restricting the term "cause" to some particular traditional definition.Gnomon
    How else are you defining it then?

    But it's now clear that Energy does not have a material existence. Instead, it is merely a (mathematical??) relationship between things*2Gnomon
    Then it fails to be a thing (being a thing would qualify it as a candidate for the fundamental reality or existent.

    If the ability or capacity or power or force that we refer to as Energy is not a Cause, what is it? Isn't Causation what Energy does?Gnomon
    That's for you to explain in this thread. I'm waiting for an explanation as to why it is a cause, and why it is fundamental.

    Energy is relative, but what's interesting that for any observer, it's always conserved.Gnomon
    If it's relative, then it cannot be a cause. It's also contradictory to "conserved".

    Food for thought for you: Gravity is also just there. Why is gravity not the ultimate reality?
  • Science as Metaphysics
    But as was made clear by the four causes, 4 is the perfect answer here.simplyG
    How so? Energy is not a cause.

    Inches & miles are conventional measures of space, not space itself.Gnomon
    Energy is a measure of capacity, not the thing it is measuring. It is not a cause. It cannot be a cause. It is also not a thing that exists as if it has a categorical substance. Please define "energy". If energy exists, it's because there are things!
  • Science as Metaphysics
    Perhaps I wasn’t clear, ideas itself require no energy themselves to be elucidated or thought yet…there must be something producing then…could that not be some type of energy?simplyG
    Assumption can be dangerous. Think deeper. Is energy a cause of ideas? I refer you to Aristotle's 4 causes.
  • Science as Metaphysics
    Sorry, I don't understand how you write. So, I won't be responding to your post. Nothing personal.
  • Science as Metaphysics

    When you say that energy is the fundamental thing in the universe, it is like saying inches or miles is the fundamental thing in the universe.
  • Science as Metaphysics
    Here's a brief sample of personal opinions from individual scientists saying that Energy is the fundamental principle of the universe*2.Gnomon
    In philosophy, energy cannot be the fundamental existent as it is not a thing.

    1. It is not a thing like perceptible thing.
    2. It is not a result of a logical meditation, like Descartes's. dualism.
    3. It is not any of Aristotle's 4 causes:
    a. material
    b. efficient
    c. formal
    d. final
    4. It is not a perception out of ordinary experience.

    What it is, is a capacity or a measurement for a thing to do work.

    I think you are misunderstanding what energy is. In science, energy "exists". But in metaphysics, energy is not a categorical substance or entity or thing.
  • Science as Metaphysics
    As a starter, please explain, in your own words, what you think the Enformationism Thesis is all about. With that information, I may be able to see why you say "enformationism is not gonna cut it". What do you think Enformationism is trying to "cut"? Do you view it as a "new scientific paradigm", or a "disguised theological premise", or what?Gnomon
    Well, first off, "Enformationism" is a made-up word for something like information. Not a problem at all. But I believe this has to do with the information theory which has been done by the likes of Shannon. I have not read Shannon, I looked up the origin of this school of thought. Here's a simple summary of what it means:

    Information theory is the mathematical study of the quantification, storage, and communication of information. — Wiki
    So far so good.

    But you wanted to make this information theory to be a school of thought in metaphysics. Listen, I read your posts about energy information. Again, not a problem. I don't care about the mechanics and the precision you want to present it. I'm not here to argue about the correct syntax or cause and effect of what happens when a computing engine is pushed to its limit. Dissipation of energy? Fine. I don't care about how much energy the storage and transmission of information takes up. The bit coin harvesting has become a household name so that even a 12 year old knows how to protest against how much energy is wasted.

    But I do not agree with your supposition that the information theory -- under the protection of science -- could actually be a metaphysical view. This is an abuse of philosophy. You said:

    The key insight is that Information is essentially a form of (physical but not material) Energy (negentropy), which is able to transform into Mass, which we experience as Matter. Thesis & blog provide technical references.Gnomon
    ...and therefore can pass off as a metaphysical speculation on the nature of existence? Energy, if you recall is a property, and as such, a regulative law. But energy applies to every entity. Think of what you're trying to answer when you try to answer the metaphysical problems. Aristotle, Plato, Descartes have all tried and succeeded in narrowing down what it is to exist -- or what it the essence of an entity like a human being.

    How exactly is energy the ultimate existence? Because energy doesn't happen as a causal theory. It is also not the essence of an entity as it is present in all and everything.
  • Science as Metaphysics
    Oh. I took that to be the meaning of the 'smallest unit', which is typically considered the atom.Wayfarer
    I might have led you to that idea. Apologies.

    Parmenides was a mystic. He had more in common with the Vedic sages than with moderns.Wayfarer
    I disagree. They had a notion of the atoms, in physics, but couldn't articulate it as we moderns articulate it. They were warm, but didn't quite get to the physics part of it. Speaking of which, earlier I said Parmenides was not an atomist. Well, all his musings point to that, actually.

    I guess you haven't been paying attention. If you really care to know, just peruse the few posts below of exchanges with Gnomon where, after hundreds of previous exchanges with him over the last few years, he had finally copped to his own crypto-"Panendeism"-of-the-gaps sophistry. :mask:180 Proof

    :smile: And I suppose, contagious? Ergh, I mean the mask.

    Therefore, I wrote down my personal interpretation of the philosophical implications of 20th century Quantum Physics & Information Theory under the heading of Enformationism. The “-ism” ending was intended to posit a 21st century worldview, to supersede the outdated ancient philosophies of Materialism (Atomism) and Spiritualism (supernaturalism)*3. The key insight is that Information is essentially a form of (physical but not material) Energy (negentropy), which is able to transform into Mass, which we experience as Matter.Gnomon

    Ouf! Is this your thesis? That's fine. But "enformationism" is not gonna cut it. You want it as raw as possible, and information is processed data. You've got layers and layers there to uncover. Did you not read the Parmenides passage? That's why I posted it here. They took the time to nail down the raw data until they could no longer go any further.
    For example, atomism works as a theory because it's .. well.. the atom. I'm not saying I agree with it, but the theory sticks because they got it as raw as possible. Naturalism is similar. When we talk about the natural forces, or the physical laws of nature, you can't argue this down any further, if your point is to unravel what's in the physical laws or what's in the natural forces. They're a given.

    But information, like I said, is processed data. They don't mimic the first principles or primary force, or fundamental unit. I mean, we put in a lot of creative license into it. You know the old mantra, garbage in garbage out -- I mean, sure we can balance the bank, in a manner of speaking; make it look pretty for the investors. But are the numbers accurate? I can make it appear like everything is in order, but with incorrect data.
  • Science as Metaphysics
    That was Democritus and Leucippus, the atomists. Parmenides was not an atomist.Wayfarer

    I wasn't referring to atomism. Here's a passage from a synthesis by Scott Austin, on Parmenides:

    The 'Truth' section of the poem concludes with a recapitulatory metaphor: being is like a well-rounded sphere equal from every side; it is not right for it to be any bigger or any smaller anywhere, since nothingness cannot prevent it from reaching uniformity, and, since there is nothing in its own nature which would cause it to be asymmetrical, it rests evenly within its bounds…

    The Parmenidean version of ultimate reality is thus one from which all
    ' distinction, difference, change, and plurality have been excluded, yet one which, in accordance with the Greek horror of the infinite, preserves its definiteness so that it can also be the truth, the implicit and single object of all language. Parmenides is thus the ' first metaphysician (or, if you prefer, theologian) to argue for those eternal attributes also shared by Plato's forms, by Aristotle's primary movers, and by their descendants in the history of philosophy. This picture of the truth as a single, abiding whole is next contrasted by the goddess with the picture to which the mortals subscribe.
    — Scott Austin

    The synthesis goes on to say that Parmenides rejected the sensible world. But here is where the ambiguity is laid out -- the mortals believe in the sensible reality, but it is not "what is" according to him.

    I'm not here to argue about what the heck Parmenides wanted -- after all, if he was saying that the truth has "definitiveness" in it, it is similar to saying that it has sensible qualities. And sensible qualities, we all know in the modern day, are those we come to know from sense perception, not logic.

    Although the mental/ideal Metaphysics I want to talk about is entirely secular & scientific, it is typically dismissed as a religious & irrational topic. So, I end-up spending most of my time denying that I'm talking about emotion-driven religious doctrines. That should be obvious though, since all of my quotes & links are to professional scientists & philosophers ; not to anti-science apologists. Yet the prejudice against Metaphysics keeps me on my back foot in non-physical topical threads. And attempts, such as this, to set the record straight are often dismissed as "whining".Gnomon
    I still don't know why you have received such reactions. What forums did you go to? Because, here, it would be out of place to label you as religious and irrational, unless, of course, you're talking about religion and theism.

    There's no prejudice here against metaphysics. This is a philosophy forum.

    I just want to talk about non-physical topics without being labeled a traitor to the received belief system of Materialism. I have replied to accusations of anti-science motives, by asserting that, for practical purposes, I am a Materialist ; but for theoretical reasons, I am a Metaphysicalist. :smile:Gnomon

    By "non-physical" I include all Theories & Conjectures & Models & Metaphors used by scientists and philosophers to describe abstract concepts that have been de-fleshed of any material substance, with only a skeleton of logic remaining.Gnomon
    You can't talk about a metaphysical theory without using a justification from both the material (sensible) world and concepts (object of the intellect). I just gave you Parmenides who couldn't stay away from shaping the truth into something we mortals could grasp, even though he purportedly rejected the sensible world.

    Edit:
    Therefore, by "scientific Metaphysics" I simply refer to such "weird" quantum notions as Superposition/Entanglement, and shape-shifting Information in both mental & material forms.Gnomon
    Funny you chose superposition -- easily mistaken to be non-physical, even if to be taken as an experimental truth. Quantum notions are physical.
  • Science as Metaphysics
    Does your one word response mean that "metaphysics" is irrevocably tainted by its association with Christian theology?Gnomon
    No. It is not tainted by its association with Christian theology and I also want to say that you are wrong, with all due respect to you. Parmenides started talking about metaphysics over 450 years before Christianity. Did you know what Parmenides and his contemporaries wanted to know? The ultimate reality -- what is the smallest unit they could reduce existence and still be true to the real.

    And therefore, the below is also a disastrous attempt to understand metaphysics:

    That's why I have proposed a modern meaning for the term, spelled "Meta-Physics", and defined as the science of the non-physical. By "non-physical" I include all Theories & Conjectures & Models & Metaphors used by scientists and philosophers to describe abstract concepts that have been de-fleshed of any material substance, with only a skeleton of logic remaining.Gnomon
    You are falling into the camps of the analytics and the continental. You don't know it yet, but that's where you're heading. I have no objection to the direction you're moving, but please do not re-design the metaphysics as if you've found an undiscovered truth that could finally save it from itself. It does not need saving.

    If you want to de-legitimize this system of philosophy, launch a whole new approach -- or better yet, defend the analytics. Or talk about the continental, and its attack on the metaphysical methodology -- its lack of worthwhile philosophical problem.
  • Science as Metaphysics
    Does any of that make sense to you?Gnomon
    No.
  • Mind over matter: the mind can slow ageing.
    I'll be more sure to write with exacting precisionBenj96
    Deal. :up:
  • Mind over matter: the mind can slow ageing.
    A petty squabble about a word that I've never seen before and from which I could not discern the usage which makes me the responsible party for my not understanding what that word was?

    I have no time to correct your disorder. I respond exactly to what you type in this thread. And if I don't understand what you're saying, I can ask you to clarify. That's not an insult.
  • Mind over matter: the mind can slow ageing.
    Those that take don't take antibiotics kill themselves faster.Benj96

    I agree. And those who are dependent on anti-biotics are also killing themselves.

    Note that everything is about dosage -- we can drink poison in a very minute amount and not die of it.
  • Mind over matter: the mind can slow ageing.
    Bacteria are stressed by the presence antibiotics. Humans are not or far less stressed by the presence of antibiotics.Benj96
    That's what you think. Those who take antibiotics are slowly killing themselves. When you take antibiotics, you're not letting the natural processes of your body to do its job. Have some faith in the process -- let your body do its thing.

    Caveat: long-term, habitual users of anti-biotics are harming themselves.

    apkkyBenj96
    Define this word please.
  • Mind over matter: the mind can slow ageing.
    If all conditions were inherently stressors, then life would not exist because it would be stressed into oblivion.Benj96
    Therefore, there are living things that aren't stressed out like some humans are stressed out.
  • Mind over matter: the mind can slow ageing.
    According to who? Trees undergo stress like we do. The stressors may not be the same. But a tree can experience detriment to it's growth potential.Benj96
    I was expecting you would say this. In that case, we're not talking about the same stress as human stress. It becomes, all conditions are stressors. Which moots your point.
  • Mind over matter: the mind can slow ageing.
    This is how the mind protects DNA. And how DNA protects the order that confers a healthy mind.Benj96
    Metaphorically, yes. Not the way you think it works. All life has a cycle. A wild tree with fruits has no stress or disorder or mind to direct it. But its fruits, too, will rot at the completion of the cycle.

    The claim in the OP isn't that behavior can cause damaging genetic changes that cause disease. It is that human behavior can cause positive genetic changes that will increase life expectancy. It mostly talks about the general affects of ageing not genetic causes of disease. It also claims "...there is a direct link between the mind and DNA."T Clark
    True, there are mitigating factors that can increase the average life expectancy. There was another thread in the forum that talked about lifespan. Advances in medicine and human conditions contributed to an increase in life expectancy. I mentioned that improving the quality of drinking water alone had contributed a lot to the well being of people.
  • Thought experiment: the witch and her curse.
    And how might he go about stopping her reign of influence over his bad days?Benj96
    Because it's only in his mind that the curse is working. You said it in the OP that the curse isn't real. But if he believes that curses are real, then, yes he's bound to that curse.

    By making amends for his originals wrongdoing. An apology is not enough; she also demanded that he confess. If he's done that, he's already in prison, unless the authorities either didn't take him seriously or decided to let him off. Which might be sufficient for the 'witch', but not for his conscience. He doesn't just need to be be freed; he needs to feel free. He needs to do something positive to restore karmic balance.Vera Mont
    This is the best option -- he needs to confess to his criminal act and ask for forgiveness (he needs to serve time for the crime, of course).
  • Thought experiment: the witch and her curse.
    Bad things will still happen to Jeremiah since she was bluffing.
    And then Jeremiah will hold her responsible.
    TheMadMan
    If he took option 1, then he needs to "release" her from the responsibility so that when bad days come to him, he doesn't attribute it to the curse and takes it as just life that happens to everyone. So the only way he is freed is for him to stop making her the responsible party for his bad days.
  • The Most Dangerous Superstition

    May I request that when the OP mentions a book or article or essay, that to include at least a passage from that reading?
  • Sleeping Beauty Problem
    To answer correctly, sleeping beauty must evaluate the probability she is experiencing each of these events.hypericin
    She can't. The instruction reads that she has no memory of prior awakening or what day it is. She doesn't even know that the experimenter tosses the coin, because they do it when she's put back to sleep. The question to her is "what are the odds that a coin will land heads (or tails)". Since she must know what a coin is, and what heads and tails is, she must answer "1/2".
    The sleeping pills, the day she awakens, and other conditions included in the instruction are all distractions for you or me or others who are reading the puzzle to divert our attention from the correct answer.

    Edit: the correct answer is 1/2 when the coin is tossed once. All SB knows is the coin is tossed once, and her information is purely coming from the question.
  • Culture is critical
    I was surprised by how high the percentages are.T Clark
    I said the average -- which means it is the largest stats. If you look at the diagram, in 2017 (The Past Year), the numbers of those involved are fairly small. The average person in a given population are not involved.
  • How would you respond to the gamer’s dilemma?
    The simpletons will literally take the virtual sexual violence as fiction. I hope that my society limits their number to parts per million (ppm).

    A society has the right to defend itself against both physical and psychological harms. A society living in fear and disgust due to psychological assaults to their senses because sexual violence and murder are protected entertainment is a society whose shared morality is broken.

    If racism and sexism are accepted virtual entertainment -- no matter how offensive -- then what happens to the workplace, for example? We could blur the actual and virtual reality and say, "I was only kidding."
  • A potential solution to the hard problem

    The closest word I could think of is reflex.
  • Culture is critical
    Do you see that as evidence that people aren't interested in political issues. It seems just the opposite to me.T Clark
    What I said prior was the average person has no interest in governance or politics. How did you come up with the opposite given the stats?
  • Sleeping Beauty Problem
    I thought I saw this problem posted before in the Lounge?

    They ask her one question after each time she awakens, however: What is the probability that the coin shows heads?
    Without memory of prior awakening or knowledge of what day it is, she would have to answer 1/2. What SB remembers is she was put to sleep and she awakens. The coin is tossed once in her memory.

    I thought the question of the experimenters was directed to SB, not to the readers of the puzzle.
  • Culture is critical
    I agree, and I think this situation has emerged due to the continuous disappointments on politics and all what is related to governance, political theory, etc... I mean: it is not a generational issue but a dysfunctional praxis.javi2541997
    The scholarly political theories we learned from higher education are only good inside the lecture halls. What we see in actuality is quite a different matter.
  • Culture is critical
    I'm not saying you are wrong, but how do you know this is true? Does this hinge upon what 'have an interest' means?Tom Storm

    10_1.png
  • Culture is critical
    So yeah, if the youth are into self governance, self discipline and not following some fanatics or fanatic ideology, a superior nation will emerge.Beena
    That means a superior nation would not emerge. The average person does not have an interest in governance, politics, and nationwide ideals.
  • Culture is critical
    Too many people are failing in life and too many are serious nut cases and too many are willing to make money any way they can without concern about the harm done to others. On top of that, we are destroying our democracy as all our institutions are failing.Athena
    :100:
  • The motte-and-bailey fallacy

    Smoking dragon pipe:

    kuritelnaja-trubka--770x511.jpg

    1963. There was turmoil all around, with the Klan playing the crowds. At one point there was an explosion, which someone said was one of the confederate canons at the ROTC building going off. One of the civil rights demonstrators yelled, "I hope they hit the bastard this time!" (meaning Wallace).jgill
    Wow. I had no idea. Thanks.